I agree that we we need limits on large turboprops. How do you propose to reduce the cap on the 70 and 76 seaters next time? Managment wants those airframes so they would just renew the leases.

 

Turbo props are not a factor. Sec 1 specifically states a 76 seat aircraft limit. So did I miss something? In my view we are not on the hook in the new TA for GTF or TP. UCAL scope is very ugly in this regard. I may have missed your intent or question DL, sorry about that if I did.

 

I was saying that I like how this TA does have limits on turboprops.

 

Maybe unless DAL wants to get 76 seat aircraft for 70's and turn them in five years earlier like we are supporting in this TA. We may lower the cap, but not at without an expense of more large RJ's.

Those 76 seat jets may be coming off of their first leases, but there is nothing in the current PWA TA to prevent then being renewed or replaced. DAL has been really good as of late doing shorter duration deals.

You are saying that overall section 1 is better, and most would agree. Many are stating not enough and not with the protections and laser specific language needed for their vote to turn yes.

I have talked to many yes, and no voters and more that are on the fence, they all agree that the language needs to be better. The yes, voter feels its worth the gamble, the no does not, and the maybe really does not like the language but is concerned about voting no even though that is what he/she really wants to do.

 

If this Section 1 dealt with what happens when those leases expire (ie sunset provision) I would wholeheartedly support it. The company would never agree to it, though. They have no intention of giving up outsourced large airframes unless it's to trade them for larger airframes. If you give up that lift, you give it up until it's no longer economical to the company. With the 76-seaters, that's probably a long, long time.

 

Shorter duration deals makes it easier to negotiate for a sunset.

We will NEVER get everything we want in one fell swoop, even the vaunted C2K gave stuff up (uhh 3.B.6!).

I tell you right now that if we take this TA and in 2015 the company wants to replace the rest of the 50's with 76's I'd consider it, provided the swap is still 2-2.8 for 1. That would put the cap at 371 total off list jets (another 21% reduction), and also cut the available seats by 10%.

If they also swapped the 70's at a 1 for 1.5 ratio it would take the numbers to a permanent 34% airframe reduction and 17% seats available reduction.

The next step would be to tighten the MBH ratios to accurately reflect what the ratios actually were over the 2010-2015 period.

Lastly, you prohibit any next generation powerplant to be operated off-list (i.e. GTF), and DCI dies on the vine.

We CAN have it all, we just can't have it all RIGHT NOW.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't care what you support. I care about the pilots of Delta Air Lines. I have no "conflict of interest", if it is helpful to Delta Air Lines Pilots then that is all that matters.

The reduction of AS codeshare limits and JV protection are often left out of this discussion and they are an integral part of Section 1 also, but since you are not a stakeholder in the PWA then your concerns have no weight.

 

There you have it folks. If you were at all wondering where your union was headed even into the next contract, wonder no more. Big mistake. Again, the small airframe 50's are self limiting....going away on their own.

Its simply not a good business decision FOR THE PILOTS OF DELTA to allow large mainline replacement size airplanes to increase, not even one. We should use the economics to our advantage and let regional jets die out on their own. Just vote no.

 

You care about yourself and your small pay bump. Not the pilots of Delta Airlines. Yes, you do have a conflict of interest. You support a rogue union leadership that said it would put together a contract that represented the desires of thousands of line pilots as reflected in the contract survey. That promise is not being followed. We are being sold on something "big brother" thinks is best based upon THEIR/YOUR own opinions, desires and interests.

What is happening right now and what DALPA is doing is completely bogus. The selling to this pilot group of something other than what they asked for is unacceptable and the reason DALPA has become so reviled this past decade. Everybody, just vote NO. Let's do this right and not regret a rushed decision (that will likely continue the stagnation we have endured for too long already) after frenzied selling by your rogue union leadership.

 

Well stated.